The second World Copyright Summit, which took place last week, at the Ronald Reagan Conference Centre in Washington DC, was a well attended and successful event that drew great interest from all key stakeholders in the 21st Century’s fast-evolving, global creative economy. Note: This post is taken from the executive summary of a report I have written about this event, which can also be found here: World Copyright Summit 2009 - Report.pdf The main objective of the Copyright Summit was, as stated on the conference tag-line, to explore “New Frontiers for Creators in the Marketplace”, and this was achieved by providing a platform for the stakeholders (represented in both speakers and audience) to engage with each other in a series of dialogues, interviews, discussions, keynotes and general networking. One immediate outcome from this has been the wider recognition of a few key messages, which are outlined below as follows: 1. Time to Change Copyright Right from the very first keynote, on day one, to several sessions on the second day, it became increasingly clear that most stakeholders are in agreement over the need for some far reaching changes to be made on the current copyright system before it can become more effective in protecting and incentivising creative works in a dynamic digital environment. 2. Need a Central, Unified and Authoritative Global Rights Registry The above was identified in several of the sessions as a key enabler towards a more appropriate and effective rights management mechanism in a global digital context. The key issues are global / technology related, therefore the solution would appear to lie in taking a unified approach to implementing what some refer to as a global database for content rights 3. Accelerate the Shift towards New Business Models / Mindsets The Google Books Settlement was repeatedly held up as a prime example of the art-of-the-possible in reaching a constructive and satisfactory outcome for all stakeholders. This model may be more difficult to accomplish in other media formats, but the fundamental requirements of an open, collaborative approach / mind-set by all stakeholders is mandatory for success. It is also becoming clear that content in digital / non-physical forms may be more appropriately positioned as a collaborative service, instead of the product-unit-centric worldview of the pre-digital content world. In conclusion, and on the above terms, this summit can be deemed a success, and CISAC -the event organisers, deserve a hearty congratulation for their commitment in putting it all together. However, it might even be more of a success if and when the mid - longer term outcome of this Summit leads to some concrete changes in the world copyright system; and perhaps in the evolution of an authoritative / unified global rights registry; as well as the adoption of a more collaborative approach, in both business models and mindsets, by the content industries and all other stakeholders. It is this author’s sincere hope, and recommendation, that the next version of this Summit will see the inclusion of more representatives from the developing world, as well as the much over-looked consumer / end-user stakeholder group, (which includes: ordinary citizens, students and the younger, next generation of users), that will ultimately deliver the verdict on any / all future initiatives on copyright.. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jude Umeh is a senior consultant and enterprise architect within Capgemini, and is something of a rights management evangelist. You can follow his Tweet-stream here
4 Comments
Leave a comment
Definitely agree with your summary. However, I am tired of talking. For years we have been talking about the new business model. What exactly is this model? It is clear to me that we have to go after the "deep pockets" like the Googles, telcos etc. and get them to pay for creative content online. Creators have to be paid for the use of their creative product. Let's persuade all the major labels and publishers etc. to simplify the licensing clearance process so that the "deep pockets' will not use this as an excuse. Collective "blanket" licensing is the solution.
Also agree that more persons from the so-called "developing" world should be represented - funding is always the issue. Whilst the World Copyright Summit is essentially for creators it is important that the panels should be balanced with those representing the copyleft movement,those representing the technology industries and those persons from countries other than North America & Europe - contributing to the debate. Let all ideas contend!
Allison Demas
CEO
COTT (Copyright Music Organisation of Trinidad and Tobago)
Also agree that more persons from the so-called "developing" world should be represented - funding is always the issue. Whilst the World Copyright Summit is essentially for creators it is important that the panels should be balanced with those representing the copyleft movement,those representing the technology industries and those persons from countries other than North America & Europe - contributing to the debate. Let all ideas contend!
Allison Demas
CEO
COTT (Copyright Music Organisation of Trinidad and Tobago)
Interesting points about going after the "deep pockets", and, perhaps more importantly, facilitating this by simplifying the licensing clearance "gridlock" with publishers / labels. I'm sure everyone would benefit from a simpler process, but it remains to be seen if the "deep pockets" will agree to pay-up so easily - I suppose we can live in hope...
Thanks for the summary Jude, it sounds like an interesting event.
Picking up on your middle point, I think there are plenty of challenges in creating an authoratitive unified rights repository. To name three..
1. Persuading enough parties to adopt global unique identifiers such as ISWC, ISRC and V-ISAN
2. Capturing the rights information itself
3. Expressing rights in such as way as useful information can actually be inferred from it
Without a unique identifier, there is no value in capturing the rights because there's no way of being certain what IP your referring to. The music industry has done well on unique identifiers, with ISWC and ISRC; but for audio-visual content there is still, sadly, not yet a widespread adoption of ISAN or any other means of uniquely identifying a production (or more importantly, version of a production).
Capturing rights information is a challenge. Many rights owners themselves couldn't give you a complete and accurate picture of what rights they still own and what they've sold. In the music industry sub-publishing agreements are notoriously complex and determining who owns the right to do what in each territory is hugely complicated.
The collecting societies generally do a good job of masking the horrible underlying complexity of rights ownership and providing a reasonably accurate means of rewarding the right songwriters, and right publishers. But capturing this information in a global database accessible and understandable by all, just may not be possible.
In the work we do we frequently come across the problem that different parts of an organisation refer to rights in different ways. For example there may be different definitions of territories or different meanings for 'clip rights' for example. Without a common language and hierarchy of rights it's impossible to infer across the organisation what can and cannot be done with that content. That's difficult to solve at organisational level. Solving that globally will take something groundbreaking.
But I agree with you that for a world which will depend more and more on the sale of content online, there needs to be a post-DRM way of finding out who gets paid for their creative endeavours.
By the way - for a view of the beginnings of a global rights repository check out the iswc network <a href="http://iswcnet.cisac.org/ISWCNET-MWI/logonPublic.do" rel="nofollow">http://iswcnet.cisac.org/ISWCNET-MWI/logonPublic.do</a>
Picking up on your middle point, I think there are plenty of challenges in creating an authoratitive unified rights repository. To name three..
1. Persuading enough parties to adopt global unique identifiers such as ISWC, ISRC and V-ISAN
2. Capturing the rights information itself
3. Expressing rights in such as way as useful information can actually be inferred from it
Without a unique identifier, there is no value in capturing the rights because there's no way of being certain what IP your referring to. The music industry has done well on unique identifiers, with ISWC and ISRC; but for audio-visual content there is still, sadly, not yet a widespread adoption of ISAN or any other means of uniquely identifying a production (or more importantly, version of a production).
Capturing rights information is a challenge. Many rights owners themselves couldn't give you a complete and accurate picture of what rights they still own and what they've sold. In the music industry sub-publishing agreements are notoriously complex and determining who owns the right to do what in each territory is hugely complicated.
The collecting societies generally do a good job of masking the horrible underlying complexity of rights ownership and providing a reasonably accurate means of rewarding the right songwriters, and right publishers. But capturing this information in a global database accessible and understandable by all, just may not be possible.
In the work we do we frequently come across the problem that different parts of an organisation refer to rights in different ways. For example there may be different definitions of territories or different meanings for 'clip rights' for example. Without a common language and hierarchy of rights it's impossible to infer across the organisation what can and cannot be done with that content. That's difficult to solve at organisational level. Solving that globally will take something groundbreaking.
But I agree with you that for a world which will depend more and more on the sale of content online, there needs to be a post-DRM way of finding out who gets paid for their creative endeavours.
By the way - for a view of the beginnings of a global rights repository check out the iswc network <a href="http://iswcnet.cisac.org/ISWCNET-MWI/logonPublic.do" rel="nofollow">http://iswcnet.cisac.org/ISWCNET-MWI/logonPublic.do</a>
Stuart, thanks for pointing out the gargantuan hurdles standing in the way of a global unified rights repository. It is this level of clarity around key challenges that will help bring perspective to the whole state-of-affairs, (and highlight the real choices for decision makers / stakeholders).
Ok, creating a universal rights registry is not an easy ask, and it might not even be feasible for all we know, but it is in trying to address these challenges that more serious efforts should be applied, instead of the usual litigation, blamestorming and/or name-calling that we often saw from the beleaguared content industry.
To my mind, the weakest link, or greatest challenge, to a global rights registry is probably the human element; inasmuch as we each have different ways to perceive / describe / value the same event or piece of content (i.e. because we are analogue creatures after all). This means that any technology-based solution or enablers thereof (e.g. unique identifiers / metadata models / rules engines etc) will need to have inbuilt tolerance for imperfection in order to be effective in a human world (this I believe also to have been a key failure of media DRM - you just can't digitise humans, at least not yet anyway).
Ps. I think that ISWC effort is a great early step towards the universal right repository idea, but still a long way to go yet.
Ok, creating a universal rights registry is not an easy ask, and it might not even be feasible for all we know, but it is in trying to address these challenges that more serious efforts should be applied, instead of the usual litigation, blamestorming and/or name-calling that we often saw from the beleaguared content industry.
To my mind, the weakest link, or greatest challenge, to a global rights registry is probably the human element; inasmuch as we each have different ways to perceive / describe / value the same event or piece of content (i.e. because we are analogue creatures after all). This means that any technology-based solution or enablers thereof (e.g. unique identifiers / metadata models / rules engines etc) will need to have inbuilt tolerance for imperfection in order to be effective in a human world (this I believe also to have been a key failure of media DRM - you just can't digitise humans, at least not yet anyway).
Ps. I think that ISWC effort is a great early step towards the universal right repository idea, but still a long way to go yet.
